United States v. Jeremy Mack, 808 F.3d 1074

Background

Jeremy Mack ran a criminal enterprise with coconspirator Ashley Onysko that sold heroin/cocaine and recruited female addicts to prostitute themselves for his benefit.
Three victims testified that Mack supplied drugs (sometimes “free”), created drug debts, controlled and withheld drugs, directed prostitution ads on Backpage, transported victims, and collected proceeds.
Victims described physical violence, threats (e.g., threats to kill or “chop a bitch up”), and severe withdrawal symptoms when denied drugs, which compelled them to engage in commercial sex acts.
A jury convicted Mack of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), four counts of sex trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1591) — including trafficking of a minor — plus drug distribution and witness tampering; district court imposed life sentences on sex‑trafficking counts.
On appeal Mack challenged sufficiency of evidence (force/coercion and minor trafficking), denial of a suppression motion (consent to search), exclusion of victims’ prior prostitution history under Fed. R. Evid. 412, and a § 3B1.1 organizer/leader sentencing enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Mack)	Held
Sufficiency — conspiracy & adult sex trafficking (counts 1, 2, 4–5)	Evidence showed agreement with Onysko and overt acts (ads, transport, direction); coercion via supply/withhold of drugs, threats, and violence supported § 1591 elements	Victims had preexisting addictions and voluntarily engaged in prostitution; free to leave; no coercion or force shown	Affirmed. Circumstantial evidence of coercion/force, control of drugs, threats, and violence supported convictions; conspiracy proved by agreement/overt acts.
Sufficiency — sex trafficking of a minor (count 3)	Proof defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that victim MS was a minor (text, witness suspicions)	Argued generally against coercion theory; did not contest minor element on appeal	Affirmed. For minor, coercion not required; evidence supported knowledge/reckless disregard of MS’s age.
Suppression — warrantless search of motel room	Officers obtained verbal consent from Onysko to search room; MB invited officers in; evidence admissible	Police report omitted consent; contended Onysko did not consent, so search was unlawful	Affirmed. District court credited officer’s testimony that Onysko voluntarily consented; finding not clearly erroneous.
Evidentiary exclusion — victims’ prior prostitution under Rule 412	Prior prostitution irrelevant to consent regarding acts with Mack; Rule 412(b)(1)(B) exception limited to sexual behavior with accused	Sought to admit prior prostitution to show victims consented and negate coercion	Affirmed. Excluded evidence did not fall within Rule 412(b)(1)(B) because it was not sexual behavior with the accused and was irrelevant to coercion.
Sentencing — § 3B1.1 organizer/leader enhancement	Court found multiple participants (transporting victims, lookout, reporting) supporting four‑level enhancement	Challenged classification of several individuals as "participants" when they were uncharged customers	Affirmed. District court’s factual findings supported that several individuals were participants; defendant’s counsel conceded accuracy below.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Campbell, 549 F.3d 364 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review)
United States v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2004) (conspiracy elements under § 371)
United States v. Farley, 2 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 1993) (circumstantial evidence weight)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural reasonableness of sentences)
United States v. Moon, 513 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2008) (consent supports warrantless search)
United States v. Elbert, 561 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2009) (no coercion element required for trafficking of minors)
United States v. Pringler, 765 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (knowledge/reckless disregard as to minor in § 1591)
United States v. Caldwell, 518 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2008) (common authority to consent to searches)